...Democrats believe that all Trump supporters are white supremacists and that white supremacists should have their lives ruined and their jobs taken away.
I recently read a recent biography of Grant (American Ulysses by Ronald C. White) and it's a national shame about how he has been treated by history. Even today the standard idea of Grant is that he was a corrupt drunk, when he was the opposite of either*. 140 years of "Lost Cause" history is a powerful force to conquer.
*Promoted to captain on August 5, 1853, Grant was assigned to command Company F, 4th Infantry, at the newly constructed Fort Humboldt in California.[76] Grant arrived at Fort Humboldt on January 5, 1854, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Robert C. Buchanan, a martinet officer, with whom Grant had earlier crossed paths at Jefferson Barracks.[77] Separated from his wife and family, Grant began to drink.[78] Colonel Buchanan reprimanded Grant for one drinking episode and told Grant to "resign or reform." Grant told Buchanan he would "resign if I don't reform."[79] On Sunday, Grant was found influenced by alcohol, but not incapacitated, at his company's paytable.[80] Keeping his pledge to Buchanan, Grant resigned, effective July 31, 1854.[81] Buchanan endorsed Grant's letter of resignation but did not submit any report that verified the incident.[82][i] Grant did not face court-martial, and the War Department said: "Nothing stands against his good name."[88] Grant said years later, "the vice of intemperance (drunkenness) had not a little to do with my decision to resign."
That being said, Grant wasn't tee-total afterwards, but after he resigned his commission he drank very little. During his time as General and later as President, he would occasionally drink a single glass of spirits or wine when he was asked to make a toast, but that was pretty much it.
people who might be "readily swayed by the socio-political concept of 'social justice'" are probably also opposed to excessive sentencing and possibly even the entire prison system.
Guilty as charged. However, I would like to add a caveat: I oppose the entire prison system as it currently exists. I'm not opposed to a theoretical prison system that keeps certain specific people out of the general population if they have proven themselves dangerous to others (and not just dangerous to others' money, since the money can always be replaced).
Consider this next bit about being okay with certain sentences to pertain to only sentences in just prisons:
I would also likely be "readily swayed" by the fact that I don't think anyone, no matter how repugnant they are, should be be serving that much time in prison, especially if they did not personally kill anyone.
At a guess, I'd say that about 10% of people who personally killed someone should be serving 20 years or more. Of course, a 20 year sentence does't mean 20 years in prison. They let them out much, much sooner and then use the fact that they're on parole to invasively monitor their lives to make sure that they aren't getting back to their criminal gig.
So the real question is something like, "Is it in the interest of society and justice to use the threat of a twenty year sentence to coerce a defendant "voluntarily" give up the constitutional right to a trial by jury to plead to a charge with a 5 year maximum sentence and a sentencing agreement that specifies 32 months incarceration, with normal eligibility for parole, which under guidelines will mean 15 months, and after credit for time served awaiting trial and/ or the completion of the plea agreement means they get to go home under supervision of a parole officer in 90 more days"?
The laws are written such that people are intimidated into giving up their rights in a manner that appears voluntary, yet is anything but. She won't serve 20 years. She won't even be sentenced to 10. But if she's sentenced to 6, she'll still serve more than 2 years and spend the rest on probation.
(As an aside, this is something like what I think she will get in a plea bargain or upon conviction, but again, I'm opposed to her actually serving her sentence in a US prison under the conditions that generally pertain to US prisons. If she could serve her sentence in Sweden, I'd be okay with her being actually incarcerated, as opposed to living in the community under supervision of a Parole & Probation Officer.)
Generally, I think that the sentences given in the US are excessive, but for participating in an effort to overthrow the constitution? Yeah, I think that society has an interest in making sure it knows what you're up to for at least 6 years. Frankly, given the length of presidential terms, I'd prefer she be on probation or parole until at least 6 months after Biden leaves office, which is more than 8 years from today, so I think the sentence she's likely to get even if convicted on obstructing congress is less than what's actually needed given the nature of her crime.
But sure, she shouldn't spend that long in actual prison, or any time in the current US prison system.
The motion states that Ms. Cudd cannot get a fair trial in Washington DC because 94 percent of the residents voted against Donald Trump,
Hmm. This requires follow-up:
Judge: Counselor, where did you get this information that 94% of DC residents voted for someone other than Trump in the 2020 election? Defense Counsel: I got those figures directly from the official election results. Judge: So just to be clear: for the purposes of these proceedings, your client accepts that the official election results are accurate and I won't be hearing anything later from your client about these results not being trustworthy? Defense Counsel: Uh, no Your Honor. I believe we will want to show, and will rely on evidence that my client's honest belief that the election results were falsified. Judge: So, explain to me how your client believes that the election results were falsified but also believes that the election results relied upon in this motion are not falsified. Defense Counsel: Uh, um. I'm not sure we are prepared to do that at the moment. Judge: Fine. Then since you haven't figured out whether you can trust the information in your own motion, I'll set that motion aside for a week and you can come back next Wednesday and tell me whether you want to amend the motion to remove any reliance on election results or whether you want to stipulate for the purposes of these proceedings that the election results were valid. I don't want a fight over estoppel later.
Let's make an irrevocable trade - she gets tried in Texas as long as every woman or medical provider ever charged with violating any texas abortion statute is tried in DC.
Kind of OT, but not completely: Jury selection is yet another reason voter suppression laws hurt POC. Jury pools are usually drawn from voter registrations. People like this lawyer make these kinds of arguments because they and the people who trained them used this reasoning to exclude black jurors in cases with black defendants since forever.
It does level the playing field for "at- will" (also known as "random") employment. After all, we should ensure that everyone participate in Employment Anxiety.
There were Molotov cocktails present. If the rioters had been able to lock everyone in Congress, there was real danger of a mass killing.
She was already hanging out with a bunch of people easily swayed by socio-political consequences. Her fellow insurrectionists.
As Mando says; “It is the way”.
I filled in three rightwing buzzword bingo cards just reading her brief.
It was God King Trump's most recent edict after winning the election, I'm surprised it wasn't bigger news.
No Mistress Morgan.
I agree with you there, and his work with Cream is fine, but after Derek and the Dominos is was mostly downhill from there.
...Democrats believe that all Trump supporters are white supremacists and that white supremacists should have their lives ruined and their jobs taken away.
To be fair, I'm not detecting the lie here.
I recently read a recent biography of Grant (American Ulysses by Ronald C. White) and it's a national shame about how he has been treated by history. Even today the standard idea of Grant is that he was a corrupt drunk, when he was the opposite of either*. 140 years of "Lost Cause" history is a powerful force to conquer.
*Promoted to captain on August 5, 1853, Grant was assigned to command Company F, 4th Infantry, at the newly constructed Fort Humboldt in California.[76] Grant arrived at Fort Humboldt on January 5, 1854, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Robert C. Buchanan, a martinet officer, with whom Grant had earlier crossed paths at Jefferson Barracks.[77] Separated from his wife and family, Grant began to drink.[78] Colonel Buchanan reprimanded Grant for one drinking episode and told Grant to "resign or reform." Grant told Buchanan he would "resign if I don't reform."[79] On Sunday, Grant was found influenced by alcohol, but not incapacitated, at his company's paytable.[80] Keeping his pledge to Buchanan, Grant resigned, effective July 31, 1854.[81] Buchanan endorsed Grant's letter of resignation but did not submit any report that verified the incident.[82][i] Grant did not face court-martial, and the War Department said: "Nothing stands against his good name."[88] Grant said years later, "the vice of intemperance (drunkenness) had not a little to do with my decision to resign."
That being said, Grant wasn't tee-total afterwards, but after he resigned his commission he drank very little. During his time as General and later as President, he would occasionally drink a single glass of spirits or wine when he was asked to make a toast, but that was pretty much it.
Agree. Sadly, that was when he was strung on smack.
people who might be "readily swayed by the socio-political concept of 'social justice'" are probably also opposed to excessive sentencing and possibly even the entire prison system.
Guilty as charged. However, I would like to add a caveat: I oppose the entire prison system as it currently exists. I'm not opposed to a theoretical prison system that keeps certain specific people out of the general population if they have proven themselves dangerous to others (and not just dangerous to others' money, since the money can always be replaced).
Consider this next bit about being okay with certain sentences to pertain to only sentences in just prisons:
I would also likely be "readily swayed" by the fact that I don't think anyone, no matter how repugnant they are, should be be serving that much time in prison, especially if they did not personally kill anyone.
At a guess, I'd say that about 10% of people who personally killed someone should be serving 20 years or more. Of course, a 20 year sentence does't mean 20 years in prison. They let them out much, much sooner and then use the fact that they're on parole to invasively monitor their lives to make sure that they aren't getting back to their criminal gig.
So the real question is something like, "Is it in the interest of society and justice to use the threat of a twenty year sentence to coerce a defendant "voluntarily" give up the constitutional right to a trial by jury to plead to a charge with a 5 year maximum sentence and a sentencing agreement that specifies 32 months incarceration, with normal eligibility for parole, which under guidelines will mean 15 months, and after credit for time served awaiting trial and/ or the completion of the plea agreement means they get to go home under supervision of a parole officer in 90 more days"?
The laws are written such that people are intimidated into giving up their rights in a manner that appears voluntary, yet is anything but. She won't serve 20 years. She won't even be sentenced to 10. But if she's sentenced to 6, she'll still serve more than 2 years and spend the rest on probation.
(As an aside, this is something like what I think she will get in a plea bargain or upon conviction, but again, I'm opposed to her actually serving her sentence in a US prison under the conditions that generally pertain to US prisons. If she could serve her sentence in Sweden, I'd be okay with her being actually incarcerated, as opposed to living in the community under supervision of a Parole & Probation Officer.)
Generally, I think that the sentences given in the US are excessive, but for participating in an effort to overthrow the constitution? Yeah, I think that society has an interest in making sure it knows what you're up to for at least 6 years. Frankly, given the length of presidential terms, I'd prefer she be on probation or parole until at least 6 months after Biden leaves office, which is more than 8 years from today, so I think the sentence she's likely to get even if convicted on obstructing congress is less than what's actually needed given the nature of her crime.
But sure, she shouldn't spend that long in actual prison, or any time in the current US prison system.
The motion states that Ms. Cudd cannot get a fair trial in Washington DC because 94 percent of the residents voted against Donald Trump,
Hmm. This requires follow-up:
Judge: Counselor, where did you get this information that 94% of DC residents voted for someone other than Trump in the 2020 election? Defense Counsel: I got those figures directly from the official election results. Judge: So just to be clear: for the purposes of these proceedings, your client accepts that the official election results are accurate and I won't be hearing anything later from your client about these results not being trustworthy? Defense Counsel: Uh, no Your Honor. I believe we will want to show, and will rely on evidence that my client's honest belief that the election results were falsified. Judge: So, explain to me how your client believes that the election results were falsified but also believes that the election results relied upon in this motion are not falsified. Defense Counsel: Uh, um. I'm not sure we are prepared to do that at the moment. Judge: Fine. Then since you haven't figured out whether you can trust the information in your own motion, I'll set that motion aside for a week and you can come back next Wednesday and tell me whether you want to amend the motion to remove any reliance on election results or whether you want to stipulate for the purposes of these proceedings that the election results were valid. I don't want a fight over estoppel later.
Let's make an irrevocable trade - she gets tried in Texas as long as every woman or medical provider ever charged with violating any texas abortion statute is tried in DC.
Kind of OT, but not completely: Jury selection is yet another reason voter suppression laws hurt POC. Jury pools are usually drawn from voter registrations. People like this lawyer make these kinds of arguments because they and the people who trained them used this reasoning to exclude black jurors in cases with black defendants since forever.
It does level the playing field for "at- will" (also known as "random") employment. After all, we should ensure that everyone participate in Employment Anxiety.
"But I'm entitled to be tried by my PEERS!!!1!!!"